It is interesting to see that qualities of speed and convenience of digital capture seem to be taken as perverting the process. From a digital perspective the hours of processing are hardly golden. Much time is spent just standing around and waiting for development, drying, storing of film, proofing, test printing and final printing with the washing and drying.No they don't. Digital just makes them easier and sometimes cheaper.
Indeed. It also insists that every photograph viewed on a computer screen, Van Dyke Brown, albumen, gum bichromate, or scanned C41 from SupaSnaps is equally perverted because the person didn't visit the photographer's home to examine their portfolio. Such is the logic of purism.It is interesting to see that qualities of speed and convenience of digital capture seem to be taken as perverting the process.
For a vocational program that makes sense. That’s where the work seems to be.At our vocational program we took film out of the main degree in favor of more emphasis on digital entry-level. We also brought our HDSLR Video course out of the Electives and into the main degree. Basic Film is now an elective and a part of a new Certificate which includes Intermediate Darkroom and Alternative processes.
That's not the conclusion I drew from the exchange, and I can elaborate why with examples if necessary, but if you gain pleasure from saying you were right, who am I to deny you of it?
Nope. Jill Enfield's Guide to Photographic Alternative Processes - Popular Historical and Contemporary Techniques. Chapter 3: The Digital Negative Process. That's just for starters.
and it was with that I was agreeing.No they don't. Digital just makes them easier and sometimes cheaper.
Your idea of what denotes alternative process is restricted to film. I take alternative to mean anything except a negative positive print. A salt print viewed on a computer is a digital image. How can it be otherwise?Eh? You said that a large number of alternative processes require digital, which isn’t true...unless they had computers in the 19th century? Nothing to do with enjoying being right. Everything to do with correcting statements that are factually wrong.
I agree: artificial intelligence is really highly complex algorithmic searching and processing. Not thinking. Not creativity. My opinion.
Agreed. And, if I may extend that a bit, it is for ECONOMIC benefit to replace human skill with machine skill. If AI can do radiology better than a radiologist, you can bet your life radiologists will be reduced to rubber stamping the work of AI. This process in radiology is already underway. The first step was to replace a local radiologist with an "offshore" radiologist working for pennies on the dollar.It was never meant to. The goal is to mimic human behavior so that a human could not tell whether it was a person or a machine.
That's because it's easier to buy a new camera or lens than take a good photo. Taking a great photo is extremely difficult on any camera, and rarely depends on the type or price of the gear.Even on "serious" photography web sites you can see that the interest in the photographs is swamped by the interest in gears.
No one discusses photographs on photography sites for fear of offending the photographer. There are even rules that say you cannot say anything critical.The only thing left to talk about is gear.That's because it's easier to buy a new camera or lens than take a good photo. Taking a great photo is extremely difficult on any camera, and rarely depends on the type or price of the gear.
... And the “essence” of photography.No one discusses photographs on photography sites for fear of offending the photographer. There are even rules that say you cannot say anything critical.The only thing left to talk about is gear.
Agreed.No one discusses photographs on photography sites for fear of offending the photographer. There are even rules that say you cannot say anything critical.The only thing left to talk about is gear.
Weird and elitist attitude.
To be clear, I have nothing against gear talk and engage in it all the time. I'm just pointing out the loss of critical analysis of photography. i.e. web sites didn't help."Relevance, power and veracity" have always been elusive in photography. There may be more photographs viewed now, but the percentage of good ones probably hasn't changed.
As for gear talk, that's always been a part of it, too. Some are drawn to photography to make images, others because of the gear. It's the same with sound reproduction. Some like the music, some like the gear.
I’m not saying a thing about your character, but only the written words. I don’t know you and your character any more than you know me and mine.You just can't help yourself can you? If you don't understand an issue, it doesn't mean the presenter is an "elitist." Your rather persistent attempts at painting my character are tiresome.
My condescending advice is for you to bone up on the subject so as to contribute to the ideas without trying to slander the presenters. It can be done, but you have to know what you are talking about.
I don't think most media consumers even care anymore how, or where, or when, or who, or what was involved in the individual image. There's no time to dwell on it before more images are pouring in. "Cute cat!" "WoW - what a burger." "What an ugly dress Jane is wearing." "OMG - look at that fool!"...
...So yes, we're seeing lots of photographs, just like we're seeing more and more hamburgers, but the nutrition is suffering badly. Quantity is up, meaningfulness is down.
I know. I have a few myself. (I adopted these three sisters about 20 months ago)Now hold on Eddie... cute cat pictures are something else. Ha ha ha...
...Even on "serious" photography web sites you can see that the interest in the photographs is swamped by the interest in gears...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?